- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Attorney for Smith family / Attorney for Hayes l Press Conference Recap
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:04 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:04 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
quote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that Hayes should be getting off free & clear. the argument is that Smith escalated the situation in his own way
How is that relevant?
quote:
all these people (Payton, Brees, citizenry) and acting like he just got shot for no reason at all.
People upset because their close friend got shot. The horror.
1
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:05 pm to CajunsTigersSaints
Hayes is fricked. Burn in hell motherfricker
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:05 pm to Fun Bunch
it is pretty irrelevant, but if you are going to use it to frame Will Smith's complete innocence
He also pretty much said Will had been drinking but wasnt impairied enough to make poor decisions
He also pretty much said Will had been drinking but wasnt impairied enough to make poor decisions
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:05 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
quote:
all these people (Payton, Brees, citizenry) and acting like he just got shot for no reason at all.
Getting shot for mayyyybe putting a ding in someone's bumper is almost as bad as getting shot for nothing at all...IMO.
Absurd.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:06 pm to bwallcubfan
quote:
Again any reasonable person will say that's a H&R.
I don't think you know what the "reasonable person" standard is, legally. Its certainly possible a jury could and would believe it, but it would be hard to reach the RPP standard.
But again, its just not relevant.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:06 pm to bwallcubfan
quote:
Again any reasonable person will say that's a H&R.
Repeat it 1,000 times and it still will not be a fact.
Let's look for paint swap, dent, broken tire carrier, etc. on either car.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:07 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
But geez this dude is so unsure of what he is saying its not even funny.
The other thing that jumped out was he said the situation was defused and Will was returning to his vehicle. Based on eye witnesses saying both guys mentioned guns, I highly doubt this situation was resolved. Someone ramming your car like that, problems aren't just going to be worked out in minutes.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:07 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
if you are going to use it to frame Will Smith's complete innocence
Complete innocence as to what?
He was the victim. We don't have to "prove his innocence".
Hayes has to prove his.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:08 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Getting shot for mayyyybe putting a ding in someone's bumper is almost as bad as getting shot for nothing at all...IMO. Absurd.
putting a ding in someone's bumper, then driving off is still H&R.
and are we now totally discounting Smith telling Hayes he had a gun?
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:09 pm to Fun Bunch
You're a lawyer
What's with him answering questions with "it is my belief..."
Like, if the gun was indeed in the compartment, wouldn't it serve him better to just say, "the gun was definitely found in the glovebox"
Or if his client didn't hit Hayes originally, why not just say they didn't make contact instead "the smith vehicle did not believe it bumped Hayes"
I realize this isn't a trial or anything, just seems it would better serve his clients if those are the facts
What's with him answering questions with "it is my belief..."
Like, if the gun was indeed in the compartment, wouldn't it serve him better to just say, "the gun was definitely found in the glovebox"
Or if his client didn't hit Hayes originally, why not just say they didn't make contact instead "the smith vehicle did not believe it bumped Hayes"
I realize this isn't a trial or anything, just seems it would better serve his clients if those are the facts
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:09 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
quote:
and are we now totally discounting Smith telling Hayes he had a gun?
What law does that break again?
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:09 pm to bwallcubfan
quote:
The other thing that jumped out was he said the situation was defused and Will was returning to his vehicle. Based on eye witnesses saying both guys mentioned guns, I highly doubt this situation was resolved. Someone ramming your car like that, problems aren't just going to be worked out in minutes.
how'd Will end up slumped over the wheel with his feet on the ground outside the vehicle if he had his wife were standing on side of the vehicle and he was shot in the back?
quote:
What law does that break again?
none but I believe this guy's story about as much as I believe Hayes' lawyer's story that he was simply protecting himself from an irate Will Smith.
This post was edited on 4/13/16 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:10 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
But again, its just not relevant.
we will just agree on this and move on
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:11 pm to NoSaint
quote:
its like the 3rd or 4th different account of how the shooting happened that we have gotten from various people close to smith, though the first direct from a passenger of the car.
id give her version some extra weight obviously, though some of it seems to run against what we see or have heard.
If she was shot outside of the car they will be able to prove it. So let's wait and see.
If it's true. Hayes is screwed.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:12 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
Some people just like to argue. Get a job, preferably as an attorney.
Spraying 10 shots at 2 people, neither of which had a gun on their person is unjustified. Period.
If it turns out Will had a gun on his person, that changes things.
Spraying 10 shots at 2 people, neither of which had a gun on their person is unjustified. Period.
If it turns out Will had a gun on his person, that changes things.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:12 pm to bwallcubfan
The shooter shot the wife first according to the lawyer. Guess he was really concerned that Smith had a gun.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:13 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Key word: Appears. The impact is not visible on camera. Everyone is simply inferring it.
Yes, I chose that word carefully. The problem is that everyone is jumping to conclusions without the details
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:13 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Complete innocence as to what?
He was the victim. We don't have to "prove his innocence".
we know the Will Smith rear ended Hayes. They deny that
we know from eyewitness that Will Smith announced he had a gun. No mention of that either.
Like I said, I understand his situation but anyone with a brain can read through this.
So according to the Smith camp, they dont know why Hayes pulled to the side of the road, and then followed him, cause Smtih's car never hit Hayes'. And Hayes shot Will in the back 6x without Smith mentioning anything about a gun. We know through great media efforts that both of those things are false.
I know Hayes has to prove his innocence. Im talking about the press conference
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:13 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Some people just like to argue. Get a job, preferably as an attorney. Spraying 10 shots at 2 people, neither of which had a gun on their person is unjustified. Period. If it turns out Will had a gun on his person, that changes things.
no shite. Hayes had no reason to pull a gun let alone shoot it unless Will had a gun in his hands.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 12:15 pm to pmacneworleans
quote:
The shooter shot the wife first according to the lawyer. Guess he was really concerned that Smith had a gun.
Goes to RAGE as a motive and not self defense.
Page 3 of 69
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News